brand logo

Use of term ‘organic’ in ‘organic fertiliser’ needs to be better defined: Chemistry don 

25 Jan 2022

 
  • Notes particular usage is ambiguous, unlike in case of ‘organic chemistry’, or ‘organic agriculture’ 
  • In scientific debate, definition and agreement on meaning of the terms used needed for clarity of thought to reach sound conclusions
  BY Ruwan Laknath Jayakody  The use of the word “organic” in the term “organic fertiliser” is ambiguous unlike in the case of the terms “organic chemistry” and “organic agriculture”, a local chemistry expert observed.  This was noted by a Professor Emeritus at the Sri Jayewardenepura University’s Applied Sciences Faculty’s Chemistry Department and the Journal of the National Science Foundation of Sri Lanka’s Editor In Chief, A.M. Abeysekera in an editorial on “What is ‘organic’? Organic chemistry, organic fertiliser, and organic agriculture”, which was published in the National Science Foundation of Sri Lanka Journal 49 (4) in December 2021.  The historical connotation of the word “organic” was with regard to a connection with processes in nature, involving life. Thus, “organic chemistry” was the chemistry of natural substances, obtained from animals and plants, and these substances were considered to possess a vital force. Vitalism is defined by W. Bechtel and R.C. Williamson as the belief that living organisms are fundamentally different from non-living entities because they contain some non-physical element or are governed by different principles than are inanimate things. This vital force made them different from substances obtained from non-living matter such as minerals.  However, the idea of a vital force gradually receded with the realisation that at least some of the substances produced by living organisms could also be produced in the laboratory, starting from inorganic materials. German chemist F. Wöhler’s observation in 1828, that urea could be obtained by heating ammonium cyanate, was a landmark experiment in this narrative. That said, that Wöhler's synthesis sparked the downfall of the theory of vitalism, which states that organic matter possesses a certain vital force common to all living things, which has itself been disputed. According to Wikipedia, prior to the Wöhler synthesis, the work of English chemist J. Dalton and Swiss chemist J.J. Berzelius had already convinced chemists that organic and inorganic matter obey the same chemical laws while it took until 1845 when German chemist A.W.H. Kolbe reported another inorganic – organic conversion (of carbon disulfide to acetic acid) before vitalism started to lose support.  As the vast majority of the so called organic compounds contain carbon, and the compounds of carbon exceed in number those of all the other elements, the term “organic chemistry” has evolved to its current meaning today, that is to be the chemistry of carbon containing compounds. The term “organic agriculture” uses the word “organic” in its original sense of the connection with living processes in a holistic manner. Thus, one of the key principles of organic agriculture is that the farming of food crops should be carried out in a way which sustains and enhances the health of the soil, plants, animals and humans; and should be based on living ecological systems and cycles. However, the use of the word “organic” in the term “organic fertiliser” is ambiguous, unlike in the terms “organic chemistry” and “organic agriculture”. For example, urea, which is widely used as a fertiliser, is produced industrially by the reaction of ammonia (from the Haber process – named after German chemist F. Haber, who together with fellow German chemist C. Bosch, developed an artificial nitrogen fixation process as the main industrial procedure used for the manufacturing and production of ammonia from nitrogen and hydrogen, through the process of the combination of nitrogen from the air with hydrogen derived mainly from natural gas or methane, into ammonia) with carbon dioxide, which is also produced by mammals as a by product of protein metabolism. There has been much controversy recently in Sri Lanka, regarding the importation and utilisation of fertiliser, after the Government of Sri Lanka stated its policy of converting to organic agriculture. It was taken for granted, albeit incorrectly, Prof. Abeysekera noted that organic agriculture requires only “organic fertiliser”. The controversy was partly due to the usage in the public debate of the Sinhala language word for “organic” (which can be transcribed as “carbonica”) which connotes a relationship to the element carbon, rather than to “living” or “natural”. The usage of the vague term “chemical fertiliser” in the sense of being the opposite of “organic fertiliser” confused the debate further. For example, was urea an organic fertiliser or a chemical fertiliser? Was a mineral containing potassium an organic fertiliser, chemical fertiliser or a different kind altogether, called an inorganic fertiliser? Most of the protagonists in this controversy have used the word “organic” to mean just what they “choose it to mean”.  As in any scientific debate, definition and agreement on the meaning of the terms used is, Abeysekera pointed out, necessary for the clarity of thought required in order to arrive at sound conclusions. Previously, the Federation of University Teachers’ Associations, citing the findings of a group of local academics attached to the Agriculture and Technology Faculties of State Universities, claimed that the urea based formulation of nano nitrogen fertiliser of the Indian Farmers’ Fertiliser Co-operative Limited which was imported to Sri Lanka is a synthetic chemical fertiliser and not an organic fertiliser, noting that the urea is coated with polymers to make nano sized particles. Samagi Jana Balawegaya and Opposition Leader Sajith Premadasa, citing Prof. S.D.M. Chinthaka, the latter also attached to the Sri Jayewardenepura University’s Applied Sciences Faculty’s Chemistry Department, claimed that nano fertiliser is not a fertiliser, but a plant growth stimulant. The Agriculture Professionals Front, comprising 14 trade unions and organisations associated with the agriculture industry, claimed that the former and since reluctantly lifted ban on the use of chemical fertiliser has been formulated based on two myths about chemical fertiliser, one being that it is poison and the other being that it causes chronic kidney disease (CKD) that is largely found in the Rajarata area in the Polonnaruwa District. President Gotabaya Rajapaksa has publicly stated that the overuse of chemical fertiliser has significantly contributed to CKD.


More News..